Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Germans are confused over the U.S. beliefs about healthcare:
"Germany has one of the oldest public healthcare systems in Europe and while the rules can get complicated, it’s based on a simple principle: If you make more money, you pay more into the system. The premiums are based on a percentage of your income. That’s why, as the economy booms here, the national insurance system is producing strong surpluses,---"
What’s more amazing is that the US government is ALREADY actually paying more than several of these countries for it’s healthcare although the pther countries provide universal access as a right.
"But after the Supreme Court upheld what is now popularly called ‘Obamacare‘ on June 28, Switzerland’s media greeted the decision as “a victory for common sense.” Why should Americans listen to the Swiss? Because Switzerland’s healthcare model successfully delivers much of what the U.S is trying to achieve: universal coverage through mandatory private insurance" Switzerland Likes Its Version of Obamacare | TIME.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbidave After a great deal of observation and having decades of in hospital experience working in a country system, hospital chain (HCA) and very large regional system it was a no brainer that the VA won my vote as the best healthcare system anywhere! Yes I'm a Navy and Army veteran and it is likely my favortism is contrued as being influenced by being a veteran, but I would say no as it's all about being a patient! Being a patient is the benchmark along with non military employment.
It all starts with the facility ( Bay Pines comes to mind in Florida). This always expanding complex is just amazing. Every department is meticulously micro managed and let me emphasize in the cleanest of environments! You can walk anywhere and teams of orientation coordinators are giving newbees a professional overview. Sometimes there are lines at the pharmacy,and cashier but considering over 1 million veterans passing through these doors its a miracle anything can be managed ,organized or appointments kept on time (that really empressed me the flow!). The staff beginning with housekeeping all the way to administration are a fantastic team. The physicians are among the most skilled anywhere and and many of the best in local system (that I know personally) are migrating to VA (the best of the best!) I had 2 surgeries this year by great surgeons and cared for my RN's who really have their act together. The revovery units were spotless and I recovered uneventfully. I was referred to cardiac scan ,dermatolgists ,Cat scan,occupational therapy ,physical therapy,audiology (hearing loss),surgery clinic,EKG, opthamology, Neuro and extremly professional and detailed one on one with the head of pharmacy! Are you cottonpick'in kidding me!!!!!!!!! Veterans also present with mutiple system health issues steming from severe combat and non combat injuries,chronic disease(s),obesity,alcohol ,social economic ,age and psycological issues seemingly at a much greater propensity that private sector. From risk management,social services allied health departments,education infectious disease clerks and dietary no matter where you go its top notch.
I'm sure the VA will be happy to hear your endorsement. I too have used the VA for 30 years and find them good, if not excellent. The medical centers are excellent some of the clinics not too much. It seems to me thaat once you turn 65 Doctors who are billing Medicare want to do procedures and tests to run up the bill. The VA doctors are not driven by that incentive
They do a lot of test to run up the bills. That is what the documentary I added up above is about. We test the hell out of ourselves. To top it off, those test do more harm than good. Needless procedures as well.
They hadn't done any studies on the effects until recently. Come to find out, we do a lot of testing for no good reason. It drives up our costs, hurts our health, and makes for fat wallets.
The study was conducted using two hospitals with two different approaches. One in CA, one in Utah. It's a must see, and an eye opener for me. We need some regulation in this system, it's a free for all right now and most of it's just pro profit, not pro health.
These procedures and test come with risks. They are finding the risks aren't taken into consideration as most people and doctors feel it easy to do them and the risks easy to justify.
This harmful approach to medicine is the 3rd to 4th leading killer in the U.S. People need to research for themselves and really take care of their own needs until we can come up with a better alternative. Most surgeons won't get the surgeries they do to others. Why? Because their surgeons and know what it does to you. Needless surgeries effect you for a life time as well as shorten that life.
Food for thought.
At this point, we don't need anyone on that congress anymore, we need a general manager, and a competent accountant. Someone that knows how to manage money, and someone that knows how to put everyone back in their place. I can't believe people here pay taxes to support such a corrupt congress that does NOTHING for the well being of the population. NOTHING. Look at the laws passed and who they benefit.
In Europe we don't allow foods that are damaging to people to see the stores, here damaging foods FILL the stores and nobody says anything about it! Has the overall IQ being THIS LOWERED??? (maybe it IS the food people eat here that makes them this massively dumb to put up with such horrible system that's against the citizens!!??)
Ready, Set, Go:
True Walmart people who "we" have to thank for not being able to afford health insurance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and THIS is what the US is trying to force the rest of the world to adhere too btw!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMAO!!! OMG! This is a funny picture until you realize how true it is.
Yes, we sell contaminated food for profit, then sell contaminated health insurance to fix ourselves with. It's getting pretty idiotic. Profit really turns a blind eye. It can't help it.
We should be free enough to make a good living, but not free enough to take a life. It's a fine line and we have crossed it many times. Only 1% of America makes over $200,000 a year. 1%. Think about it. Shouldn't the rest of us stop dreaming of becoming that 1% and get real. We need to make this system work for us, not a tiny minority at the top. Our lives depend on it, really.
Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
That is not a myth....it is a fact. I will once again call upon the German Minister of Health to debunk....
"By law, our health insurers cannot reimburse for services that are deemed unnecessary. Thus, a doctor who provides such services will not be paid for them. If IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) decides that a given treatment does not provide value, the treatment can be excluded from the benefits package". -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
...and then I'll simply let the laws of those countries debunk and destroy that argument...
Austria: Medically necessary, sufficient, appropriate (see General Social Insurance Act (ASVG), §133[2])
Belgium: Medical necessity, activity, cost effectiveness, safety (by Royal Decree)
France: Inscription of new medical and surgical procedures after advice of ANAES on efficacy and safety
Germany: Medically necessary, effective, cost effective (see Social Code Book (SGB) V, §135[1])
Luxembourg:
Sufficient, appropriate (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 17,1)
or
Medically necessary, effective, efficient (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 23,1)
Netherlands: Medically necessary (see Sickness Fund Act (ZFW), preamble)
Switzerland: Effective, appropriate, cost-efficient (see Swiss Insurance Law (KVG), §32)
The UK also has similar criteria....
"Appropriateness criteria govern when and for whom a treatment or service included in the benefits package is funded. Appropriateness criteria may entail clinical criteria that a patient has to meet before a given treatment is deemed appropriate and therefore funded."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits.
That is not true at all. To the extent that it might possibly be true, it would depend upon how the system was set up and organized.
Seeing how the American Hospital Association will be writing most of the laws for that, you are guaranteed that it will be a botched coat-hangar abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Fact Two:There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer
"By law, our health insurers cannot reimburse for services that are deemed unnecessary. Thus, a doctor who provides such services will not be paid for them. If IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) decides that a given treatment does not provide value, the treatment can be excluded from the benefits package". -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
...and then I'll simply let the laws of those countries debunk and destroy that argument...
Austria: Medically necessary, sufficient, appropriate (see General Social Insurance Act (ASVG), §133[2])
Belgium : Medical necessity, activity, cost effectiveness, safety (by Royal Decree)
France : Inscription of new medical and surgical procedures after advice of ANAES on efficacy and safety
Germany : Medically necessary, effective, cost effective (see Social Code Book (SGB) V, §135[1])
Luxembourg :
Sufficient, appropriate (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 17,1)
or
Medically necessary, effective, efficient (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 23,1)
Netherlands : Medically necessary (see Sickness Fund Act (ZFW), preamble)
Switzerland : Effective, appropriate, cost-efficient (see Swiss Insurance Law (KVG), §32)
The UK also has similar criteria....
"Appropriateness criteria govern when and for whom a treatment or service included in the benefits package is funded. Appropriateness criteria may entail clinical criteria that a patient has to meet before a given treatment is deemed appropriate and therefore funded."
Debunked....
For those who don't get it, I'll use myself as an example.
I would not be treated in Europe. Why?
Medical necessity. If I am not treated, I will not die, nor will I be harmed in any way, meaning not treating me will not result in additional medical problems. The surgery is neither effective nor cost-effective. It has an high failure rate. In my case, the one surgery was 100% effective, but the second surgery was only 75% effective. I fared better than most people as this particular surgery is only 50%-50% on success. Age is also a factor in determining "appropriateness" as well as medical necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Fact Three:Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind
The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com
* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized
Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center
1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org
* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs,On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room” with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.
Flat screen TVs are "free" right? They just fall out of the sky and mystically magically land in hospital.
European hospitals have flat screen TVs? No. Feng sui? No. Jacuzzi? No. On-Demand Movies? No. Private rooms? No.
Do you think those amenities.....which are lacking in European hospitals....might be one reason health care costs in the US are higher?
Who do you think pays for those amenities, because it ain't free?
Do you think such extravagant amenities might drive up the cost of your pre-paid medical service plans (that everyone calls "health insurance")?
Do you all understand that in Europe, you don't get a private or semi-private room; you go on a ward with 5 to 17 other people staring at you. If you want a private or semi-private room, you have to purchase supplemental insurance and pay for it out of your own pocket, and yes, private and semi-private rooms cost a helluva lot more than being on a ward.
I just thought I'd bring some realism here....you know, because some of you have some really bizarre ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.
That claim cannot be proven or supported by facts.It would be true if, and only if, the system implemented was exactly as described by the Green Party propaganda artists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Wrong conclusion.
As I have proven, a single payer system would have heavy government involvement, including the rationing of health care, and limitations on what care is provided.
That is how European countries can afford health care...they ration.....they limit....they deny care....they delay care....they dilute care.
For those who doubt, you can read this very informative article about people in the UK dying because their treatment was denied, delayed or diluted...
Rationing Health Care Is it time to set out more clearly what is funded by the NHS?
Benedict Rumbold, Vidhya Alakeson and Peter C. Smith
February 2012
Why Ration Health Care?
An international study of the United Kingdom, France,
Germany and public sector health care in the USA
Heinz Redwood CIVITAS 2000
Delay, Denial and Dilution
The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit London
David G. Green
Laura Casper
Who still wants to live in Fantasy World with their eyes-closed and their head in the sand?
Rationing...
Mircea, you aren't reading your opposition's posts. Go back to my post #270 and click on the link. It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of one of the most respected physicians in Dallas County. President of the Dallas Medical Society.
He says WE ALREADY HAVE RATIONING---just irrational rationing.
You obviously didn't read my previous post indicating that the "myths" listed were also someone else's take on our health care system.
If we want to talk about insurance, I do have significant, if old, experience. I served in the insurance field for over 30 years as an underwriter, ratemaker, and compliance officer. I served three years on the Board of Directors of the Association of Insurance Compliance Professionals, two of those as the elected Treasurer of AICP.
If you believe insurance companies have your best interest in mind, you'd better check what you're smoking. If you believe insurance companies want to follow the laws and regulations of the states they operate in, check again. If they can avoid those laws and get away with it--they will. My last year in the business we had a senior V.P., AFTER we received a cease and desist order from a state insurance department, calling all our agents in that state and tell them to "sell it as fast as you can."
That was the last straw for me in a long list of attempts by senior officers to avoid following laws and regulations. I left the insurance business while making a six figure income including bonuses, and then worked as a flunkie in the medical records department of a major metropolitan hospital for six years at about 12% of the money I was making in the insurance field.
I think that should show anyone that I'm not about the money---but the damn insurance companies are.
Seeing how the American Hospital Association will be writing most of the laws for that, you are guaranteed that it will be a botched coat-hangar abortion.
I really ought to quit right here, Mircea. This is such a bizarre and ridiculous statement you've destroyed any little credibility you might have. No rebuttal is necessary at all. Its just a stupid statement.
[
Quote:
B]"By law, our health insurers cannot reimburse for services that are deemed unnecessary. Thus, a doctor who provides such services will not be paid for them. If IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) decides that a given treatment does not provide value, the treatment can be excluded from the benefits package"[/i]. -- [/b]Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
...and then I'll simply let the laws of those countries debunk and destroy that argument...
Your point about the obligations of these systems to render only "medically necessary care" doesn't surprise me. Read through your health insurance policy sometime. You'll likely find language in the policy that only obligates your private insurer to pay for "reasonable and medically necessary expenses". These are legal terms.
By the way, "necessary" does not mean "absolutely necessary". It means "reasonably necessary. There's a difference. Example: A patient with a kidney stone will survive and likely pass his kidney stone without pain medication. So, in that sense its not absolutely necessary he have pain medication. However, pain medication for a kidney stone is "reasonably necessary". Therefore it is paid for and provided.
Quote:
For those who don't get it, I'll use myself as an example.
I would not be treated in [/font]Europe. Why?
Medical necessity. If I am not treated, I will not die, nor will I be harmed in any way, meaning not treating me will not result in additional medical problems. The surgery is neither effective nor cost-effective. It has an high failure rate. In my case, the one surgery was 100% effective, but the second surgery was only 75% effective. I fared better than most people as this particular surgery is only 50%-50% on success. Age is also a factor in determining "appropriateness" as well as medical necessity.
None of us can judge your personal situation when you provide such skeletal information. This means nothing at all.
Quote:
Do you think those amenities.....which are lacking in European hospitals....might be one reason health care costs in the
Quote:
US are higher?
Who do you think pays for those amenities, because it ain't free?
Do you think such extravagant amenities might drive up the cost of your pre-paid medical service plans (that everyone calls "health insurance")?
Do you all understand that in Europe[font=Verdana], you don't get a private or semi-private room; you go on a ward with 5 to 17 other people staring at you. If you want a private or semi-private room, you have to purchase supplemental insurance and pay for it out of your own pocket, and yes, private and semi-private rooms cost a helluva lot more than being on a ward.
Honestly, if it would reduce medical costs in this country, I'd prefer they put everyone in either a semi-private room or a hospital ward. I was in a pediatric ward 45 years ago when I was hospitalized. I thought being around other kids was great.
Quote:
I just thought I'd bring some realism here....you know, because some of you have some really bizarre ideas.
Yours are the most bizarre of all.
Quote:
That claim cannot be proven or supported by facts.It would be true if, and only if, the system implemented was exactly as described by the Green Party propaganda artists.
Wrong conclusion.
Bad arguments by someone who makes little sense.
Quote:
As I have proven, a single payer system would have heavy government involvement, including the rationing of health care, and limitations on what care is provided.
Care is rationed in America based on how many dollars one has or who has the "Cadillac Health Insurance Plan". I suppose you think that is a better system right?
Quote:
That is how European countries can afford health care...they ration.....they limit....they deny care....they delay care....they dilute care.
All systems ration care. Some do it based on money. Others do it based on what they perceive to be patient needs. I prefer the latter to the former.
Quote:
Who still wants to live in Fantasy World with their eyes-closed and their head in the sand?
If you believe the free market is capable of fixing our health care problems in a manner that is acceptable to a majority of American people it is you who lives in a "fantasy world".
Europe and the other developed countries have that figured out. Here in America, some still cling to the notion that our system is the "best in the world". Its falling apart. Its only best if you can afford the care that it provides.
Last edited by markg91359; 12-29-2012 at 04:50 PM..
This is what I fear from a national health care system: that we'll become Great Britian where 1,000 people a month die from negligence. That a Brit will die at the hands of the NHS is five times more likely than an American dying from a gunshot wound.
This is what I fear from a national health care system: that we'll become Great Britian where 1,000 people a month die from negligence. That a Brit will die at the hands of the NHS is five times more likely than an American dying from a gunshot wound.
My goodness, do you think similar things aren't occurring in our own system? A Harvard study concluded that there are 150,000 deaths a year in this country from medical malpractice. BTW, that number may go up if certain people get their way and we make it harder for injured people to bring claims based on physician negligence.
The people who really upset me are those who want the "worst of all worlds", a medical system based on the free market, along with legal restrictions on the right to sue physicians under such a system when they commit negligent acts causing injuries to patients.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
U.S. Healthcare doesn't work
